There are some bugs with the current one that they tried to get fixed in time, but were not able to fix it. (Which is probably why they didn’t commit to using it until now). So, to provide a stable game to the pro scene they are going to have to go with the last patch instead.
At least, that is the reason being cited.
She won’t even have her shield bash cone fix. They using the old patch enjoy!
Listen you can commit proof by assertion all you want. It doesn’t change facts.
Storm Arrow does not add anything to the table that lowers His skill floor.
Widow is still vastly easier to use, she also has a lower maximum potential. The skill requirements for Hitscan is fractional in comparison to projectile, especially when that projectile is not even close to Hitscan emulation.
You did not address any skew. You are just admitting you do not understand how statistics work.
Her performance is falling post nerf, correct. And?
It is perfectly relevant. Claiming otherwise is claiming that there should be no reason for higher skilled heroes to exist in the first place.
If I could get the same output out of a hero with lower skill input by me, this is objectively a vastly superior pick. It is like a bell curve. So if a hero that requires a higher level of skill initially to output performance that contributes to the outcome of a match, said hero should naturally have a higher maximum performance potential. Ergo if Hanzos performance exceeds that of say… Soldier or Pharah… in the higher skill pool… well that is flat out representing “working as intended”
*It does add something to the table that lowers his skill floor, which is why Hanzo is performing far better than he used to even at the lowest tiers.
*Yes, I did address the skew by addressing the things that skew their data.
*No. Her most important nerfs have not even made it to live yet. The heroes she counters all have lower pickrates than they did at the start. And the heroes that counter her all got more popular. Her team also stabilized. As people started to learn to both build around and against her, she lost performance.
At the beginning, people were doing things like running dive against her. A lot of people were also playing her and against her for the first time, and new hero pickrates are always higher than what they stabilize out to be.
This is why early data from a hero like Brigitte isn’t as reliable as later data, and that is why the devs taken a slow and cautious approach to changing her. If she was crazy overperforming even outside of her meta, they would’ve acted more quickly. But they did not, and one look at her performance when compared to other healers and tanks will tell you why.
*No, it is not. It’s irrelevant because pick rates at the aggregate level tend to be based on who is the strongest hero, and what is the dominant strategy, of that time period. This is why many developers balance around it. Most people like winning more than losing, and will pick the hero that will help them do that,. Then if they aren’t enjoying it, they will come to the forums to complain. That is why developers look at both word of mouth AND pickrates.
*The skill cap of a hero matters only when we’re your talking about what they should or should not counter, and what should or should not counter them. It has no relevancy to why the current most picked heroes are the most picked heroes in competitive. The ones that are the most picked are picked because that is the strategy that is most likely to secure you a win.
*Tanks and supports should have a higher pickrate because they define the meta and have less options. Brigitte is mandatory to running the dominant strategy, Hanzo is not. He should have a lower pickrate than her, irregardless if he’s a harder hero to play.
You saw this with Tracer. She did not have a higher pickrate than Zenyatta. It was irrelevant that Zenyatta required less skill, there are less options for healers and he was mandatory to run dive. Therefore he was chosen more often.
Oh damn.
I wonder if we’ll see some good dive vs death ball matches in st4.
1.) You clearly do not understand how skill floor works. Lowering his skill floor means easier to use, it does not automatically mean “higher performance”. This is just you using terminology that you do not understand.
2.) You did not, and still further reiterate your lack of knowledge about statistics. It is mathematically impossible to adjust pick rate and win rate to account for the skew with the available data from the API. Even with the data, you are talking about having to pick through a data base and view each players play time vs matches played. Try again.
3.) She was still nerfed, so just another logical fallacy from you. The rest of your post is subjective. Her performance was on the rise, and most heroes performance was on the decline until she received the first nerf.
4.) There is that proof by assertion yet again. By your own claim and ideology, that means Torb and Symmetra are also overpowered. It does not matter how much something is picked. It does not a valid representation of something being overpowered/underpowered. “but but pick rates correlate to what is the strongest hero”. Correlation does not prove Causation. You are also committing circular reasoning.
Countering is relevant to Rock-Paper-Scissors. RPS is the balance ruleset. It is completely independent from Skill floor and Cap. Just more of you using terminology that you have zero knowledge about.
I mean I could play that game too if you want?
You are wrong because of MASS SPECTROSCOPY!!!
Did it work?
*Lowering the skill floor means the lowering the skill needed to achieve some base level of performance. Generally this will result in higher performance because it’s easier to perform and therefore a broader range of people can get those results. This is why looking at how a hero performs in bronze to how they perform in GM, relatively speaking, is a good way to judge how much that floor is lowered, as bronze represents the absolute lowest level of skill.
*No. I don’t have to do that. I know that the median income for the United States for example is skewed upwards in part because of billionaires. You do not have to address the specific numbers to know what can skew the data.
*You keep using the term logical fallacy, I don’t think you know what it means. Her being nerfed in no way contradicts anything that I said. Every newly released hero has seen a larger pickrate that they’d stabilize at a little after launch, all of them. Brigitte was no exception. That was the reason for some her decline. There was a large thread tracking her pick and winrate even throughout the first week and it did not rise, it lowered, nerf or no nerf. Her performance lowered as pickrates stabilized, that is a fact. I’m not denying her nerf played no part, but you are downplaying the effects of meta stabilization as a something that skewed her earlier data, which is baffling.
*I never claimed that winrates were the end all and be all. So no, by own claims and ideology Torb and Symmetra are not overpowered. Don’t put words in my mouth, thanks.
Anyway, if they were, they’d get picked more, especially with winrates like the ones they have. People aren’t picking them because they are bad. Many developers balance off pickrate because it is actually a good indicator of balance.
In fact, just recently that was the specific reason cited for why Mercy would not be receiving changes. Blizzard balances that way as well. In a competitive game where most people are going to play to win, people are going to pick the heroes that best help them do that. This is why so many game developers use it an important balancing datapoint.
*No, it is not. A high skill hero, in general, often ends up with higher performance for their role. In order to maintain that as balanced, you have to ensure that they counter certain easier to execute strategies so that there is a reason to put in this effort to learn it in the first place, but also that there are strategies that balance the game for skill and ensures that players who don’t have that skill set aren’t just being mowed down over and over again with no real ability to fight back.
This is why Widowmaker is allowed to instantly delete most of the cast, but has an easy to execute counter strategy of staying behind shields.
Incorrect again.
You are wrong because of Mass spectroscopy!!!
Using terminology of which you do not understand combined with fallacious statements.
Proof by assertion does not work for me. You can keep repeating the same blatantly false statements, you still have zero evidence.
Lowering a heroes skill floor can also lower his skill cap. Therefore zero performance gain. At the same time Lowering a heroes skill floor, whos previous skill floor was also low enough to be performable by the general populous, does not equate to a guaranteed performance gain even if skill cap is left unchanged.
That has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
I’ve even double checked the way I used the terminology, it was all correct. Skill floor = the minimum skill needed to perform some base level of performance. Skill ceiling = the skill needed to perform at the maximum possible level, to have true mastery.
I did not use proof by assertion. I didn’t keep repeating the same statement, and nothing I said was blatantly false. You, on other hand, have repeatedly claimed “Not true! Fallacious!” etc without providing any counter examples or evidence.
*Lowering a hero’s skill floor can lower his skill cap, I never argued otherwise. eta: I don’t think that happened to Hanzo though.
*Hanzo’s skill floor was lowered and he saw dramatically increased performance gains across the board, including at the absolute skill floor, because his skill floor previously was NOT low enough to be generally performed to an adequate level by the general population. You can see evidence of that by the performance gains at bronze levels, they are dramatic.
*I never asserted that they always resulted in those performance gains. I said that you can look to bronze data to see if lowering the skill floor had that effect, because you can, and you can see that effect in Hanzo’s performance down at the bottom.
So now you are claiming you did not write something that you clearly did mere posts above.
This is really simple.
A.) prove your claim that his skill floor was lowered. Otherwise you are wrong.
B.) prove his performance saw “dramatic increase across the board”. Otherwise you are wrong.
C.) Prove he is in any way in need of changes.
You made claims. Burden of proof is on you.
They could probably slow his arrow speed back down and see how that changes him.
Good.
This community does not know what is good for them half the time anyways. I’d rather listen to pros.
No, his damage is a little OTT right now. However, he doesn’t need anything major. Just some tweaking to make sure aim is mandatory and not just something that’s “nice to have”.
IMO, a straight damage reduction to storm arrow would make him perfect. No other adjustments necessary (and honestly, a CD nerf to storm arrow would make me cry. It’s such a fun ability I’d hate to use it less often).
Make sense. The best players in the world who have put hundreds of more hours into the game than you or me probably know what is best.
Seriously, people complain about the storm arrow when now it’s a piece of cake to land at least a body shot on most heroes. That’s why his ult charge is so high.
Yet there is nothing in his performance stats that show his damage over performing. So he doesn’t need anything.
So if a hero is factually balanced, if you nerf one thing, expect him to receive a compensatory buff in another area.
So you can have your Storm Arrow damage nerf, as long as Storm Arrows either Pierce shields or have zero travel time. Deal?
Watch them turning Hanzo into nerfed Sombra 2.0
*I told you how it was lowered. The addition of storm arrows and, I should add, the increased projectile speed both lowered his skill floor.
Anyway, Wraxu, the top Hanzo player, had an average accuracy of 30% with old Hanzo. If you go to Overbuff, you see now that 30% is the 43rd percentile for accuracy. 39% percent is the new top accuracy and that number will likely go up as old data is cycled out. It is now easier to hit things with Hanzo. There is just one example of the way his skill floor was lowered. You can also look at his increased pickrate and winrate to see that it has in fact grown. https://www.overbuff.com/heroes/hanzo/trends
That is one example.
*That is really not how that works. Regardless if I decide to bother trying to convince you any further nor that he has seen increased performance, it will remain true or untrue because it’s a fact independent of me.
*I already laid out why. I’m not doing it again.
To fix the issue.
10 seconds cooldown and dps 75.
1.) That is not evidence, that is your subjective opinion.
2.) That is not evidence of skill floor being lowered. Consistency does not equate to skill floor. There you go again with those logical fallacies. Correlation does not equal causation.
3.) So in other words you are simply making claims without being able to provide evidence to support said claim. Burden of proof is on you, that is the same as admitting you are wrong or that your claims are really your subjective opinion that you misrepresented as factual.
So far the performance stats for Hanzo, according to Overbuff and other API based websites are showing him as performing well within parameters for a DPS centric hero. He is showing a performance standard above some DPS heroes in some metrics, and at the same time lower than some DPS heroes in other metrics. He is high skill floor and high skill cap, therefore a performance metric that is showing a higher average at higher skill pools over a lower skill floor/cap hero is working as intended. Input vs Output.